Age discrimination

An interviewer could ask, ‘How old are you?’, which you might think is a reasonably harmless question, although possibly a little personal. Alternatively, they might elaborate on the question in such a way as to reveal why questioning you on your age is simply not acceptable.

• Aren’t you a little young to hold a position of this level?
• Aren’t you perhaps a little old to cope with this job?

These questions might very well make you feel rather uncomfortable, but are they discriminatory?

Are you indeed too young to be able to have a position of such responsibility/authority? Or are you too old to keep up with such a fast-paced role?

Of course not…

William Pitt was just 24 when he became Great Britain’s youngest prime minister. He went on to spend 20 years in office during the course of a highly distinguished career.

William Gladstone, on the other hand, was still going strong as British prime minister at the age of 84.

I will admit that these are fairly extreme examples but being prime minister of Great Britain is a fairly extreme job and, whether 24 years old or 84 years old, both these individuals succeeded admirably.

The Equality Act 2010 makes it quite clear that an interviewer should not be questioning you on your age. You should no longer even put your date of birth on your CV.

Whilst an interviewer has the right to make their selection on the basis of experience – which may sometimes favour more mature candidates – they should not rule someone out of the recruitment process on the basis of age.

If you’re faced with a question concerning your age, phrase your answer in such a way to demonstrate to the interviewer that your age is not a relevant factor; it is your skills and experience that count. Use this question as an opportunity to reiterate your key selling points and how they match the requirements of the job.

I would note that legislation is always complicated and I have, out of necessity, simplified the interpretations given in this chapter. You should be aware that there are always exceptions to every rule. For example, if you are older than, or within six months of an employer’s normal retirement age, then an employer does have the right to reject your application on these grounds. However, most exceptions are fairly minor and will only apply to a very small percentage of individuals.

Sexual discrimination

Whilst it is normally very clear when a question is discriminatory on the grounds of age, sexual discrimination can be a lot less obvious.

Sexual discrimination is normally a greater problem for female applicants; however, it is important to be aware that male applicants can also be targeted. It all depends on the circumstances and the precise line of questioning that an interviewer adopts.

‘Are you married?’ might seem an innocuous enough question to ask either a man or a woman and it’s not actually illegal for an interviewer to ask this. However, it can rapidly lead on to a whole gamut of questions which contravene the Equality Act 2010.

• Do you have any children?
• Do you plan to have any children?
• When do you plan to have children?
• You’re not pregnant, are you?

Previously, many candidates would volunteer information about their family on their CV:

Marital status: Married; two children

However, this is now considered a potential invitation to discriminate and it is no longer recommended.

Once an interviewer has established your marital status and whether or not you have children, it may lead them into severely discriminatory territory.

• What impact will the travel requirements of this job have on your family?
• How does your wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend feel about you taking this job?
• Is arranging childcare going to cause problems for you?

Your marital status is not relevant to your ability to do the job. Your family is your own private business. What impact this job might have on members of your family and whether taking this job might cause you any problems are issues that you will have to deal with; they have nothing to do with your employer and they don’t have any right to be questioning you on such subjects.

When faced with such questions, it’s probably not going to be to your advantage to take offence. Try to handle them in a very matter-of-fact manner and, if you can identify your interviewer’s concerns, you may wish to address these, but make sure you don’t come across as being defensive. The interviewer shouldn’t have asked you the question in the first place so you hold the moral high ground.

Besides questions relating to your marital status and your children, it is worth mentioning that there are a variety of other lines of questioning which are deemed to constitute sexual discrimination, including questions regarding your sexual orientation. Whilst these are less likely to crop up in interviews, it has been known.

Racial discrimination

It’s important to note that racial discrimination isn’t limited to the colour of your skin. Racial discrimination can be a whole lot more subtle than that; it could come down to a simple difference of nationality or even the town or county in which you were born.

It is usually pretty obvious whether or not a question is racially discriminatory.

• Where were you born?
• Where do you come from?
• What is your mother tongue?

These types of questions are normally totally irrelevant and are consequently discriminatory.

Whilst an employer has the right to ensure that you are entitled to work in the UK and is allowed to select on the basis of your ability to communicate in English (or any other language, for that matter) they are not allowed to discriminate arbitrarily on the basis of your geographic or ethnic origins.

Racial discrimination is one of the most widespread and pervasive forms of discrimination and many readers of this book will be painfully aware of that fact.

My advice would be to answer any such questions in a factually correct fashion and to say no more. This isn’t a topic you should dwell on.

As I have previously mentioned, the interviewer is not necessarily prejudiced. They might just be curious (and inexperienced).

If, however, you suspect the interviewer is prejudiced in some way, then you need to ask yourself:

• Would you really want to work with/for such an individual?
• Would you be prepared to take the matter further and make a formal complaint?

These are questions that only you can answer. Personally, I feel that, whilst it may be in your own best interests to let the matter drop, this world needs people to stand up to such behaviour if we are ever to succeed in eradicating it completely.

Religious discrimination

Discrimination on religious grounds is rare. Whilst religious differences continue to be the cause of conflict, we nevertheless live in an increasingly secular society.

Interviewers are unlikely to question you as to your religious beliefs, largely because the issue is unlikely to cross their minds. The most likely reason for the idea to pop into their heads is if some aspect of your appearance outwardly reveals your beliefs; for example, you might wear a Star of David on your necklace. Religious discrimination is also closely linked with racial discrimination, and if an interviewer has identified a racial difference between you, they may also suspect a religious difference.

The bottom line is that this question is (in almost all cases) completely and utterly irrelevant. It’s absolutely none of the interviewer’s business.

There is, however, nothing to be gained by getting indignant. My advice would be the same as for a racially focused question; answer factually but don’t elaborate. The interviewer will hopefully move swiftly on to other, more appropriate, topics.

Disability discrimination

It is permissible for an employer to question you as to whether or not you have a disability. However, the Equality Act 2010 generally prevents them from taking a disability into account when making their selection. On this basis, one might wonder why they have the right to ask you at interview and why it can’t wait until a firm job offer has been made. The reason is that an employer is only obliged to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to accommodate a disabled person. If, despite such adjustments, a candidate would still be unable to do the job effectively (as a result of their disability), then the employer is nonetheless allowed to reject the application.

There are various ways in which an interviewer could approach this topic.

• Do you have a disability?
• How do you cope with your disability?
• Can you undertake this job with your disability?
• What adjustments would we need to make to accommodate your disability?

However they go about questioning you, your aim should be to briefly disclose the nature of your disability and then go on to detail the adjustments which would be required for you to undertake the role.

Whilst it is uncommon for an employer to discriminate on the basis of a disability itself, the interviewer may have concerns as to the changes that will need to be made. If you are aware of state funding which may be available to support such changes, then you can go a long way towards allaying such fears. You should also reassure them that, subject to these changes, you will be able to undertake the role just as effectively as a non-disabled person.

Trade union membership

Discrimination on the grounds of trade union membership can swing both ways. You could be discriminated against for being a member, and you could be discriminated against for not being a member.

Your membership (or lack of membership) of a trade union is not relevant to your ability to perform the job for which you are applying; therefore, any questions on this topic are illegal.

You will be the best judge of how to answer any such questions. It will depend on your individual circumstances. You may feel it is to your advantage to disclose the truth. Alternatively, you may feel it is best to politely decline to answer. Being able to tell the truth is definitely preferable but not if you think it’s going to cost you the job.

Criminal convictions

The law does not currently provide a great deal of protection for those with criminal convictions. Whilst some might feel that such individuals don’t deserve any protection, this is a very short-sighted attitude. Failure to rehabilitate offenders by helping them to reintegrate into society will inevitably lead to higher rates of recidivism.

Limited protection is afforded by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which allows for certain criminal convictions to be deemed ‘spent’ after what is termed a ‘rehabilitation period’. If a criminal conviction is spent then you are permitted to conceal it from a prospective employer, and if you have any criminal convictions then it is vital to be aware of what this rehabilitation period is. The Act also makes it unlawful for record-keeping bodies such as the Disclosure & Barring Service to disclose details of such convictions.

However, these general rules do not apply to certain employers and organisations. The rationale is to ensure that employers and organisations offering certain sensitive positions, professions and licences can access an applicant’s full criminal history before reaching a decision.

If you are in any doubt as regards your own specific circumstances, then it’s always advisable to seek appropriate professional advice.

If you have convictions which aren’t yet spent then you are legally obliged to disclose them if asked and, as the law stands, a recruiter is not formally prohibited from taking this into account when making a selection.